This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

The date of release makes no difference as long as the provisions are still the same.
The increased mandates for coverage were not removed from the bill which is why the cost increases are likely to incur, that doesn't count the increased in costs to young people.

That article is arguing something completely different. It's saying that young people will have to pick up more of the burden from elderly under the new law. It's a redistribution of costs, not an overall increase in cost for everyone.

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Originally Posted by Gander

This is a very simplistic analysis. Not everyone who visits a physician really needs medical care. One of the problems with the current system is that people visit the doctor for trivial things too often. Now that people will have free access to medical care, this problem will become further exacerbated and demand for medical services will invariably rise, resulting in an increase in costs.

Your assumption is contingent upon the belief that people will use medical services they don't need just because they are there. Could you provide a source establishing with actual statistics that this has occurred before?

That's what happened under Romneycare, not sure why it would be different for Obamacare...

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

That article is arguing something completely different. It's saying that young people will have to pick up more of the burden from elderly under the new law. It's a redistribution of costs, not an overall increase in cost for everyone.

It is an increase in costs for someone, what happened to the rhetoric of "your premiums will decrease?"

What about the fact that young people have less income and resources than older people, how does it make sense to raise costs on them?

It seems to me you're grasping at a justification for the existence of the bill that passed.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

It is an increase in costs for someone, what happened to the rhetoric of "your premiums will decrease?"

I don't think that was a claim that Obama was making. When did Obama say that every American's premiums would be decreasing?

What about the fact that young people have less income and resources than older people, how does it make sense to raise costs on them?

It's inadequate assumption. Many older adults are living on fixed incomes and can't work.

It seems to me you're grasping at a justification for the existence of the bill that passed.

To the contrary. I haven't heard a sufficient argument to suggest that the legislation that passed won't control costs. Feel free to produce one. At present you have failed and only provided information on the Senate bill prior to the reconciliation.

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Your assumption is contingent upon the belief that people will use medical services they don't need just because they are there. Could you provide a source establishing with actual statistics that this has occurred before?

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

The debate is whether the bill does enough to control costs. I have yet to hear an intelligent, evidence based argument presented from either side that indicates how this bill will affect cost. All I hear is speculation and ideology.

The law will cost $trillions, so where are the savings?

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS. #MAGA

Re: 60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Do you have any sources that actually talk about the legislation that was passed? None of these sources seem to discuss the legislation that was actually passed, by which I mean the Senate Bill and the fixes that they approved later. They also refer to the CBO report of just the Senate Bill, not the CBO report that was released of the combined legislation.

If we are going to talk about whether or not Obama's health care will control costs, shouldn't we be talking about the legislation that we actually have?

Maybe you should get Bart Stupak to splain it to you, I hear he has plenty of time now.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS. #MAGA